Device Tree questions WRT MIPS/Octeon SOCs.

[David VomLehn (dvomlehn)]

We're in much the same situation. Almost all of the device tree is
static, but we add on/overwrite little bits. I'm not the device tree
expert, but if I understand correctly, you can even have dtc emit labels
that you can reference to make the fix-up simpler.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Daney [mailto:ddaney at caviumnetworks.com]
> Sent: Friday, October 15, 2010 10:42 AM
> To: David VomLehn (dvomlehn)
> Cc: Grant Likely; Warner Losh; prasun.kapoor at caviumnetworks.com;
linux-
> mips at linux-mips.org; devicetree-discuss at lists.ozlabs.org
> Subject: Re: Device Tree questions WRT MIPS/Octeon SOCs.
> 
> On 10/15/2010 10:30 AM, David VomLehn (dvomlehn) wrote:
> 
> > If this is really a question of needing to dynamically generate the
> > device tree, then you have no choice. It's worth mentioning, though,
> > that the device tree compiler (dtc) does have the ability to include
> > files, making it easier to create and maintain device trees that are
> > static but which share devices.
> 
> Some experimentation will be necessary.  We will have to patch in some
> properties like the Ethernet MAC address as that is stored in a
> separate eeprom.  Also some boards have pluggable I/O modules, so we
> may not know at dtb generation time what is there.
> 
> David Daney
> 
> 
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: linux-mips-bounce at linux-mips.org [mailto:linux-mips-
> bounce at linux-
> >> mips.org] On Behalf Of Grant Likely
> >> Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2010 6:29 PM
> >> To: Warner Losh
> >> Cc: ddaney at caviumnetworks.com; prasun.kapoor at caviumnetworks.com;
> linux-
> >> mips at linux-mips.org; devicetree-discuss at lists.ozlabs.org
> >> Subject: Re: Device Tree questions WRT MIPS/Octeon SOCs.
> >>
> >> On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 7:13 PM, Warner Losh<imp at bsdimp.com>
wrote:
> >>> In message:<AANLkTi=UM2p26JJMqv-
> >> cNh8xACS_KPf_dCst5cgmh5VR at mail.gmail.com>
> >>>             Grant Likely<grant.likely at secretlab.ca>  writes:
> >>> : Overall the plan makes sense, however I would suggest the
> >> following.
> >>> : instead of 'live' modifying the tree, another option is to carry
> a
> >> set
> >>> : of 'stock' device trees in the kernel; one per board.  Of course
> >> this
> >>> : assumes that your current ad-hoc code is keying on the specific
> >> board.
> >>> :  If it is interpreting data provided by the firmware, then your
> >>> : suggestion of modifying a single stock tree probably makes more
> >> sense,
> >>> : or possibly a combination of the too.  In general you should
> avoid
> >>> : live modification as much as possible.
> >>>
> >>> The one draw back on this is that there's lots of different
"stock"
> >>> boards that the Cavium Octeon SDK supports.  These will be
> difficult
> >>> to drag along for every kernel.  And they'd be mostly the same to,
> >>> which is why I think that David is suggesting the live
modification
> >>> thing...
> >>
> >> Okay.  Do what makes the most sense for your platform.
> >>
> >> g.
> >
> >